Pure Appl. Biol., 9(4): 2128-2137, December, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227

Research Article

Use of carnea larvae to control (Aleyrodidea: ) on tomato plant in greenhouse

Hamid Rehman1, Aslam Bukero1, Abdul Ghani Lanjar1, Lubna Bashir1, Zainab Lanjar2 and Shahzad Ali Nahiyoon1* 1. Department of Entomology, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, 70060-Pakistan 2. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, 70060-Pakistan *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] Citation Hamid Rehman, Aslam Bukero, Abdul Ghani Lanjar, Lubna Bashir, Zainab Lanjar and Shahzad Ali Nahiyoon. Use of larvae to control whitefly (Aleyrodidea:Hemiptera) on tomato plant in greenhouse. Pure and Applied Biology. Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp2128-2137. http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227 Received: 01/02/2020 Revised: 29/05/2020 Accepted: 03/06/2020 Online First: 29/06/2020 Abstract In the last ten years, whitefly has presented a serious risk to vegetables most commonly the tomatoes and natural products in the field. Another significant issue is associated with the management control system and preferences for the tomato plants. In these lines we investigate Predatory efficiency capability and capacity of Chrysoperla carnea with whitefly Bemisia tabaci in a greenhouse were study at Hyderabad, Pakistan. Larvae of Chrysoperla carnea were used against whitefly in a greenhouse. Adult, eggs and nymph of Bemisia tabaci is affected by Chrysoperla carnea. In this experiment used different numbers of larvae is attached to tomatoes plants to measure the efficiency of Chrysoperla carnea larvae. The overall mean population of whitefly indicates positive correlation with the number of larvae introduced. Highest overall mean whitefly population is observed in Un-Treated (13.11±1.614) and (4.012±0.804), the lowest count found in 10larvae/plant (7.400±0.904) and (1.363±0.561) for adult and nymph respectively. Up to 50% mortality is observed as compared to untreated plants. During this experiment, a strong negative correlation is observed between Chrysoperla carnea applied/plant and whitefly population (-0.808) and (-0.978) in adult and nymph respectively. Data also clearly showed decreased from start and after introduced Chrysoperla carnea larvae to tomato plants. Keywords: Chrysoperla carnea; Bemisia tabaci; larvae; mortality; tomato Introduction amongst the most imperative vegetable The tomato, Lycopersicum Escolentum Mill, products developed for its beefy leafy foods is a vital and generally utilized vegetable as vital business and dietary vegetable yield. yield. It is extremely nutritive and heavenly; It is a brief span product and gives a high not very many vegetables can coordinate its return, it is imperative from the financial nutritious esteem. Tomato is a standout

Published by Bolan Society for Pure and Applied Biology 2128 Rehman et al. perspective and consequently, region under locales for lacewings against Bemisia tabaci its development is expanding step by step [1]. (Genn.) in cotton. Organic control by the A large number of pest is attacked on many utilization of predator Chrysoperla vegetables in the greenhouse, resulted highly carneahas likewise picked up significance loss in yield [2]. In Egypt, currently up to for bother administration in Pakistan. Some 60% cucumber growing in the protected current examinations give an urgent case of environment [3]. Biological control of major discharge locales for lacewings against pests depending on specific predator [4]. Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) in cotton [10]. The Green lacewings (: ) Chrysoperla carnea is a biological agent are considered among the best generalist control (Hubner) in predators of . Four arrivals of tomato [11]. The lacewings decreased the predator’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd instar hatchlings populace on a few plants and their were produced using the season of aphid’s adequacy was 84%. These investigations appearance on canola trim till its have demonstrated that nourishing and development at post daily interims. organization of lacewing for the control of its Utilization of chemicals has so far been populaces as aphid predator is presently viewed as the best methods for control of the utilized as a part of coordinated vermin [5]. Since the utilization of pesticides administration of this irritation [12]. is created with a few detriments, an organic Chrysoperla carnea can be utilized as a control program in light of incorporated bug viable natural control operator for effective administration is a more judicious usage of incorporated irritation methodology [6]. Larvae of Chrysoperla administration program to lessen the carnea is feeding immature stage of whitefly utilization of bug sprays and spare outside [7]. The biological control is a strategy for trade spent on pesticides import. The controlling pest using common foes in productivity of lacewing to control nuisances horticulture that is a naturally solid and viable can be influenced by numerous variables, method for relieving vermin thickness [5]. including the utilization of various predator The in class Chrysoperla carnea have instars which might be an urgent factor in the for some time been viewed as the most vital accomplishment of augmentative organic normally happening predators in numerous control [8]. editing frameworks, including vegetables, Materials and methods natural products, nuts, fiber and scavenge Greenhouse crops, ornamentals, nursery harvests, and The experiment was conducted in a woodlands [8]. greenhouse in Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan. Green lacewing hatchlings are likewise The experiment was performed in a 3m × 5m known to eat a wide assortment of other nursery. Initially, a ½″ inch polyvinyl delicate bodied including many chloride (PVC) pipes and clear plastic aphid species and creepy crawlies by (0.05mm) was used to construct the assaulting prey and sucking out their body greenhouse infrastructure (Fig. 1a). Besides, liquids. It is a ravenous feeder on first instar some bamboo was used to support the of mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis infrastructure. The environmental conditions Tinsley [9]. The natural control by the inside the nursery were measured, using a utilization of predator Chrysoperla carnea hygrometer to control humidity, temperature has likewise picked up significance for pest and an air cooler as the evaporator. The administration in Pakistan. Some current environmental conditions used are as examinations give a pivotal case of discharge follows; temperature ≈ 28.42 ± 2.96 °C,

2129 Pure Appl. Biol., 9(4): 2128-2137, December, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227 humidity ≈ 32 ± 3.48%, photoperiod ≈ 10.55 ± 0.18 h, and light intensity ≈ 2400 lux.

Figure 1a. Greenhouse

Host plant selection homemade suction apparatus (aspirator) (Fig. The tomato plants were transplanted from the 1b). Only the adult were used in field into 35 plant mud pots (width = 30 cm) this experiment. Approximately, 350-400 in the nursery, while the selected 5 pots were sets of whiteflies, which were gathered by the exposed to treatment in this experiment. The suction apparatuses, were released to the 35 plants were consistently watered twice a day. tomato plants in the greenhouse. Complete The mud pots Placed in Complete Randomized Design (CRD) was used in this Randomized Design (CRD). experiment. The counting for nymphs and Collection of Bemisia tabaci adult whitefly population was started after The whitefly adults were carefully collected week. from the field of cucumbers by utilizing a

Figure 1b. Homemade Suction Apparatus (Aspirator)

Chrysoperla carnea to the greenhouse with muslin black cloth Chrysoperla carnea larvae obtained from the attached to the plant by a pin. Chrysoperla entomology lab of the Sindh Agriculture carnea attached to plants in 2, 4, 6,8,10 /plant University, Tando Jam. Larvae of (Fig 1c). Chrysoperla carnea were transferred gently

2130 Rehman et al.

Figure 1c. Chrysoperla carnea attached to tomato plant in greenhouse

Observations mortality observed in all treatments accepted Tomatoes plants pots are placed in Complete T=4 (4 larvae/plant), 40% mortality with an Randomized Design in a greenhouse, overall mean (9.30±0.98) (Fig. 3). During 5plats/treatment. There were 6 treatments adult count from lowest to high recorded, applied, T1=2 Larvae/Plant, T2=4 T1= (6.70±1.03), T2= (7.42±1.15), T3= Larvae/Plant, T3=6 Larvae/Plant, T4=8 (7.96±1.04), T5= (8.20±1.04), T4= Larvae/Plant, T5=10 Larvae/Plant (9.30±0.98) and in highest count found in andT6=UN-TREATED. 10 leaves were T6= (13.92±1.61) (Table 1). During the randomly selected from each treatment to experiment, Chrysoperla carnea larvae count the number of whiteflies. The initial mortality also observed but very low. In data was taken after a week of the release of nymph, there are three groups in which mean Chrysoperla carnea larvae in the greenhouse. are not significantly different from each The data was taken twice a week up to four other. weeks. Lowest count observed in T1= (10 Data analysis larvae/plant) with (1.363±0.561) and highest The results were analyzed using Statistics overall mean population was observed in 8.1. The data were subjected to analyze untreated (4.012±0.804) (Table 2). Very variations used (ANOVA). strong negative correlation r-value (-0.978) is Results observed in between Chrysoperla carnea In adult, high mortality of whitefly was applied and whitefly nymph (Fig. 2). In observed. The number of Chrysoperla nymph from lowest to highest position carnea larvae applied to the per plant was possesses by T1= (1.363±0.561) < T2= strongly negative correlation r-value (-0.808) (1.825±0.539) < T3= (1.86±0.63) < T4= to whitefly population (Fig. 2). The lowest (2.725±0.646) < T5= (3.275±0.849) < T6= count was observed in T1 and the highest untreated. number found in untreated. 50% whitefly

2131 Pure Appl. Biol., 9(4): 2128-2137, December, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227

5 4.5 y = -0.2639x + 3.8263 4 R² = 0.9558 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

0.5 whitefly nymph whiteflynymph population 0 -1 1 3 5 7 9 Chrysoperla carnea larvae/plant

Figure 2. Correlation between Chrysoperla carnea larvae/plant and whitefly nymph population

50.00% Adult Population of Bemisia. tabaci

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

-10.00%

Deduction Percentage% T1= T1= T1= T1= T1= T1= UN 10LARVAE/PLAN 8LARVAE/PLAN 6LARVAE/PLAN 4LARVAE/PLAN 2LARVAE/PLAN TREATED T T T T T Series1 38.01% 45.78% 32.68% 35.29% 28.78% -6.58% Figure 3. Deduction in adult population of Bemisia tabaci after treated with Chrysoperla. carnea

Table 1. Impact of Chrysoperla carnea on adult population of Bemisia. tabaci Pre Treatment Post Treatment % Adult Population Treatment Population (Adult) Population (Adult) Change T1= 10LARVAE/PLANT 11.20±1.746 7.400±0.904c 38.01% T1= 8LARVAE/PLANT 13.20±1.685 7.513±1.070c 45.78% T1= 6LARVAE/PLANT 12.00±1.937 8.610±1.070bc 32.68% T1= 4LARVAE/PLANT 14.10±1.249 9.725±1.077b 35.29% T1= 2LARVAE/PLANT 11.00±1.536 8.350±1.085bc 28.78% T1= UN TREATED 12.30±1.630 13.11±1.614a -6.58% Overall mean in same column followed by same letter are not significantly different using General AOV/AOCV LSD (α = 0.05)

2132 Rehman et al.

Table 2. Effect of Chrysoperla. carnea on nymph population of Bemisia. tabaci on tomato Pre Population Post Population % Nymph Treatment (Nymph) (Nymph) Population Change T1= 10LARVAE/PLANT 3.000±0.720 1.363±0.561c 57.37% T1= 8LARVAE/PLANT 4.400±1.002 1.825±0.539c 61.09% T1= 6LARVAE/PLANT 2.910±0.720 1.860±0.630c 40.03% T1= 4LARVAE/PLANT 3.920±0.547 2.725±0.646b 34.78% T1= 2LARVAE/PLANT 4.200±0.800 3.275±0.849b 26.64% T1= UN TREATED 3.900±1.308 4.012±0.804a -2.87% Overall mean in same column followed by same letter are not significantly different using General AOV/AOCV LSD (α = 0.05) The Chrysoperla carnea efficiency is As percentage (%) change in adult Bemisia assessed on the bases of change in population tabaci density in all treatment from high to percentage (%) of Bemisia. tabaci. In the low lineup as, Treatment2 > Treatmen1 > adult population of Bemisia. tabaci, the % Treatmen4 > Treatmen3 > Treatmen5 > change in population is recorded as, T1 Treatmen6. In nymph density of whitefly (38.01%), T2 (45.78%), T3 (32.68%), T4 population %change is lineup as, Treatment2 (35.29%), T5 (28.78%) and T6 (-6.58%) > Treatmen1 > Treatmen3 > Treatmen4 > (Fig. 3). The outcomes adjusted the Treatmen5 > Treatmen 6. Result revealed the Chrysoperla carnea impact on the density of essentialness of Chrysoperla carnea as Bemisia tabaci. In the contrary, the organic control specialist. Information information recorded an increase in recommended that high numbers of population density of Bemisia tabaci in the Chrysoperla carnea released to expand the untreated plot. In nymphal population of proportion of effective control of whitefly. Bemisia tabaci, data recorded in all treatment Release of Chrysoperla carnea is as, T1 (57.37%), T2 (61.09%), T3 (40.03%), significantly decreased whitefly population, T4 (34.78%), T5 (26.64%) and T6 (-2.87%) the result indicates (DF=420 P<0.05) (Fig. 4). between all 5 treatments. The result showed In all treatment just one negative pursuing that in all experiment in start number of recorded which demonstrated expanded in whitefly is high and decreased at the end population density of whitefly in T6=un- (Table 1). treated plot respectively (Fig. 2 & 5).

60.00% Adult population of Bemisia tabaci

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

Deduction Percentage% -10.00% T1= T1= T1= T1= T1= T1= UN TREATED 10LARVAE/PLANT 8LARVAE/PLANT 6LARVAE/PLANT 4LARVAE/PLANT 2LARVAE/PLANT Series1 38.01% 45.78% 32.68% 35.29% 28.78% -6.58% Figure 4. Deduction in nymph population of Bemisia tabaci after treated with Chrysoperla carnea

2133

Pure Appl. Biol., 9(4): 2128-2137, December, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227

20 y = -0.4597x + 11.415 18 R² = 0.6522 16

14 12 10 8 6 4 whiteflyadult population 2 0 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 Chrysoperla carnea larvae/plant

Figure 5. Correlation between Chrysoperla carnea larvae/plant and whitefly adult population

Discussion Chrysoperla carnea growth period has lasted Observed that Chrysoperla carnea larvae for 19.15, 19.35, 20.15, 20.60, and 20.50 feed on all instar of whitefly nymph, eggs and days till to start feeding [18]. it is observed that the larvae preferred adult This is due to because of a lack of food of whitefly as well which indicates that availability of food and environmental Chrysoperla carnea larvae disturbed or effect condition affect the development of all life cycle of Whitefly highly mortality in Chrysoperla carnea. The success of released immature stage really affect whitefly biological control agents or mass-reared population and also improve food availability natural enemies in any system required more for larvae of Chrysoperla carnea. Mortality attention, for example, monitoring of in immature stages of Bemisia tabaci from environment and take care of food various sources in cotton, observed from availability as well [19, 20]. many years more successfully control pest Natural enemies decreased population of population below economic levels [13]. Also whitefly in every regarded plot as compare to same reported in immature E. Transvena un-treated [21]. As per our information as a within 4th instar Bemisia tabaci in laboratory percentage change in the population of condition [14]. Chrysoperla carnea also Bemisia tabaci, high declined saw up to 45% oviposit eggs, eggs were attached leaves with and 60% in adult nymph population stalk but eggs and oviposition were not respectively in the greenhouse. Same evaluated in this experiment. [15] reported, in discoveries reported by [21] that, 65.12% and Indian Punjab Chrysoperla carnea laid eggs 4% diminished in mites after released of on cotton in the growing season. pursued by Chrysoperla carnea and Trichogramma [16]. The development period of Chrysoperla respectively. Additionally, detailed 70.86% Carnea is prolonged as compared to the lab. in aphid and 80% decreased in the whitefly Same finding reported by [17]. The population as compared to un-treated plot. development period of Chrysoperla carnea is Comparable findings reported by [7] that long because of lessening in nourishment Chrysoperla carnea is a major predator of accessibility of food and utilization too [17]. whitefly and aphid. Chrysoperla carnea

2134 Rehman et al. devoured 510 nymphs of whitefly [22]. In carnea) are both are predatory on all stages contrary, Adly [23] detailed that releasing of of Bemisia tabaci. predators high criticalness responsible of the Authors’ contributions pest population, yet also additionally Conceived and designed the experiments: R referenced a challenge of pest which predator Hamid, A Bukero & AG Lanjar, Performed not known or find and a field whereas regular the experiments: R Hamid, Analyzed the adversaries not built up. [24] Reported that data: R Hamid, A Bukero & AG Lanjar, Chrysoperla carnea was discovered dynamic Contributed materials/ analysis/ tools: B predator against pest particularly whitefly. Lubna, L Zainab, SA Nahiyoon, Wrote the Same revealed by [25] in the association of paper: R Hamid, B Lubna & SA Nahiyoon. pest and predators and pursued by [26]. The References same perception reported in the pest of cotton 1. Kevany BM, Taylor MG & Klee HJ [27]. We found Chrysoperla carnea is most (2008). Fruit‐specific suppression of the classical control natural agent against ethylene receptor Leetr4 results in early‐ whitefly in the greenhouse. Natural enemies ripening tomato fruit. Plant Biotechnol are the main component of IPM from very J 6(3): 295-300. older ages. On the other hand, very classical 2. Saad HM (2002). Economics of the define thought is biological control not given integrated pest management of certain position as they have, in control of insect and animal pests on most pest suppression [13, 28, 29]. DeBach and important vegetable crops production Rosen [30] define biological control with under plastic greenhouses. Arabic 4(3): these words that biological control as 219-297. engineered the environment to favour 3. El-Zawely FE & El-Sawy NH (2007). biological control agents. Effect of plastic tunnel size on Experiment finding indicates that production of cucumber in delta of Chrysoperla carnea is more effective in the Egypt. Appl Ecol and Environ Res 5(2): greenhouse for control of whitefly with some 11-24. traits like food availability of food and 4. Hoy MA (1994). Parasitoids and environmental condition, some reported, that predators in management of arthropod Chrysoperla carnea was successfully used in pests. Intro to Ins Pest Manag 4(1): 129- IPM with some possible traits by [31]. The 198. success of predator and natural enemies 5. Sarwar M (2014). The propensity of accommodating in diminished of pesticide different larval stages of lacewing was detected [18]. Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Conclusion (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to control The finding of this experiment has proven aphid (Sulzer), that the Chrysoperla Carneais an effective (Homoptera: Aphididae) evaluated on biological control agent for control whitefly Canola Brassica napus in the greenhouse. Selection of the biological L. Songklanakarin J of Sci and control agent, release and monitoring Technol 36(2): 143-148. consistently. In conclusion, Chrysoperla 6. Ahmad M, Arif MI & Naveed M (2010). Carnea larvae were very positively decreased Dynamics of resistance to the damage of whitefly and also another organophosphate and carbamate insect pest as well. It is also concluded that insecticides in the cotton whitefly larvae and adult green lacewing (Chrysoperla Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera:

2135

Pure Appl. Biol., 9(4): 2128-2137, December, 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2020.90227

Aleyrodidae) from Pakistan. J of Pest systems for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Sci 83(4): 409-420. Prot, 20(9): 835-852. 7. Jokar M & Zarabi M (2012). Surveying 14. Kapadia MN & Puri SN (1990). Feeding effect kind of food on Biological behaviour of Chrysoperla carnea parameters on Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) on the parasitized pupae of (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) under Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Entomon laboratory Conditions. Egyptian Acad J 15(4): 283-284. of Biol Sci A, Entomol 5(1): 99-106. 15. Mannan VD, Varma GC & Brar KS 8. Tauber MJ, Tauber CA, Daane KM & (1995). Seasonal fluctuations and host Hagen KS (2000). Commercialization of predator relationship of Chrysoperla predators: recent lessons from green carnea (Stephens), (Chrysopidae: lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Neuroptera). Indian J of Ecol 22(1): 21- Chrosoperla). American Entomol 46(1): 26. 26-38. 16. Mallah GH, Korejo AK, Soomro AR & 9. Khan HA, Sayyed AH, Akram W, Soomro AW (2001). Population Razald S & Ali M (2012). Predatory dynamics of predatory and potential of Chrysoperla carnea and biological control of cotton pests in Cryptolaemus montrouzieri larvae on Pakistan. J Biol Sci 1(24): 5-248. different stages of the , 17. Salama HS, Zaki FN & Sharaby AF Phenacoccus solenopsis: A threat to (1982). Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis cotton in South Asia. J of Ins Sci 12(1): Berl. on parasites and predators of the 145-147. cotton leaf worm Spodoptera littoralis 10. Zia KH, Hafeez FA, Khan RR, Arshad (Boisd.). Zeitschrift Für Angewandte MU & Naeem-Ullah UN (2008) Entomol 94(15): 498-504. effectiveness of Chrysoperla carnea 18. Viji CP & Gautam RD (2005). Feeding (Stephens), (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) potential and cost of production of green on the population of Bemisia tabaci lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in different (Stephens) on alternate hosts. Ann of cotton genotypes. J Agric Soc Sci 4(1): Plant Prot Sci 13(2): 271-274. 112-6. 19. Van den BR & Telford AD (1964). 11. Usman M, Inayatullah M, Usman A, Environmental modification and Sohail K & Shah SF (2012). Effect of biological control. DeBach, Paul Biol egg parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis, Control of Ins Pests and Weeds 4(1): in combination with Chrysoperla carnea 219-258. and neem seed extract against tomato 20. Gurr GM & Wratten SD (1999). Forum' fruit worm, Helicoverpa Integrated biological control': A armigera. Sarhad J Agric 28(2): 253- proposal for enhancing success in 257. biological control. Inter J of Pest 12. Messina FJ & Sorenson SM (2001). Manag 45(2): 81-84. Effectiveness of lacewing larvae in 21. Mari, JM (2012). Use of Chrysoperla reducing Russian wheat aphid carnea and Trichogramma chiloni (Ishii) populations on susceptible and resistant on the population of insect pests in chilli wheat. Biol Cont 21(1): 19-26. ecosystem. In Proc of the Ann Inter 13. Naranjo, SE (2001). Conservation and Conf, Syiah Kuala Uni Life Sci & Engin evaluation of natural enemies in IPM Chapter 2(1): 314-319

2136 Rehman et al.

22. Gautam RD & Tesfaye A (2002). against sucking insect pest of cotton. J Potential of green lacewing, Chrysoperla Entomol 5(1): 31-37. carnea (Stephens) in crop pest 27. Abou-Elhagag GH (1998). Seasonal management. New Agric 13(2): 147-158. abundance of certain cotton pest and 23. Adly D (2016). Use of Predators for their associated natural enemies in Controlling the Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Southern Egypt. Assiut J of Agric Genn. and the Two Spotted Spider Mite, Sci 29(1): 253-267. Koch., in Cucumber 28. Ehler L (1998). Conservation biological Greenhouses in Egypt. Egyptian J of Biol control: past, present, and future. Pest Control 26(4): 214-219. In Conservation Biol Cont, pp 1-8. 24. Messelink GJ, Bennison J, Alomar O, Academic Press. Ingegno BL, Tavella L, Shipp L & 29. Landis DA, Wratten SD & Gurr GM Wäckers FL (2014). Approaches to (2000). Habitat management to conserve conserving natural enemy populations in natural enemies of arthropod pests in greenhouse crops: current methods and agriculture. Ann Rev of Entomol 45(1): future prospects. Biol Control 59(4): 175-201. 377-393. 30. DeBach RP & Rosen D 25. Sewify GH, El-Arna'outy SA & Belal (1991). Biological Control By Natural MH (1996). The effect of cotton late Enemies. CUP Archive. planting on population densities of 31. Grafton-Cardwell, EE & Hoy MA sucking insects and their associated (1985). Intraspecific variability in predators in Giza region, Egypt. Bull of response to pesticides in the common Faculty of Agric, Cairo Univ (Egypt). green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea 26. Center SR (2008). Presence and (Stephens), (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). abundance of different insect predators Hilgardia 53(6): 1-32.

2137